Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Current events

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:00 AM
Ike Bana Ike Bana is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
SCOTUS: Muslim ban "squarely within President's authority"

Or actually, the law makes it squarely within the President's legal authority to get away with being a fucking bigot.

One would think that the members of the high court would figure out a way to keep anybody, including the president, from blatantly discriminatory behavior. If the law does not protect people from bigoted acts, it seems to me it's the high court's responsibility to make adjustments in the law. Seems to me that blithely saying "Well that's the law for ya", isn't what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about.

See below...reckon this was squarely within der Fuhrer's legal authority according to the nazi high court.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:22 AM
nailer's Avatar
nailer nailer is offline
Rational Anarchist
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
Bigots have the right to be bigoted as long as their bigotry is within the law.
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:23 AM
Dondilion's Avatar
Dondilion Dondilion is online now
Jigsawed
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana View Post
Or actually, the law makes it squarely within the President's legal authority to get away with being a fucking bigot.

One would think that the members of the high court would figure out a way to keep anybody, including the president, from blatantly discriminatory behavior. If the law does not protect people from bigoted acts, it seems to me it's the high court's responsibility to make adjustments in the law. Seems to me that blithely saying "Well that's the law for ya", isn't what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about.

See below...reckon this was squarely within der Fuhrer's legal authority according to the nazi high court.

Probably the Supremes noticed that Trump was the one who ran ISIS government out of the huge land area which they occupied and decided to give him a free hand.

Remember we use to drop leaflets on ISIS.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:24 AM
nailer's Avatar
nailer nailer is offline
Rational Anarchist
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
Didn't Obama drop lots of ordnance on them too?
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:32 AM
Dondilion's Avatar
Dondilion Dondilion is online now
Jigsawed
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer View Post
Didn't Obama drop lots of ordnance on them too?
Yes, but they had still ruled/governed openly. And there was a reluctance to hit ISIS oil convoy based on the dubious claim that the drivers were civilians.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-26-2018, 11:49 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
This ruling means little more than a demonstration that one SCOTUS vote separates us from upholding the rule of law vs throwing the rule of law under the bus.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-26-2018, 12:38 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Shortly after the United States Supreme Court upheld Donald J. Trump’s controversial travel ban, millions of people from other countries expressed puzzlement that anyone would want to travel to the United States at this juncture.

In interviews with people from around the world, respondents said that the travel ban struck them as unnecessary, because the United States was not currently on the list of the top hundred countries to which they would consider travelling.

When asked to name the reasons they felt that a travel ban was superfluous, many of those interviewed cited the United States’s gun violence and crumbling infrastructure, as well as its broken educational and health-care systems, while others singled out its President’s startling disrespect for democratic norms and human rights.

Given those views, most of the foreigners interviewed said they found the news of the Supreme Court’s decision baffling. “When I heard that the United States was having a travel ban, I assumed that was to keep people from leaving,” one respondent said, echoing the sentiments of many.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-26-2018, 12:45 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
This ruling means little more than a demonstration that one SCOTUS vote separates us from upholding the rule of law vs throwing the rule of law under the bus.
Upholding the third attempt at a Muslim ban (after two failed miserably) that has no particular purpose other than to feed some red meat to his cultists (since 9/11 no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the countries in the Trump executive order) is somehow related to the rule of law? How ya figure?

There is precious little that your Lying Dotard has done that hasn't undermined the rule of law. He promised a Muslim Ban on day one, but ended up taking 1.5 years to deliver this useless policy.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 06-26-2018 at 01:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-26-2018, 04:01 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Upholding the third attempt at a Muslim ban (after two failed miserably) that has no particular purpose other than to feed some red meat to his cultists (since 9/11 no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the countries in the Trump executive order) is somehow related to the rule of law? How ya figure?

There is precious little that your Lying Dotard has done that hasn't undermined the rule of law. He promised a Muslim Ban on day one, but ended up taking 1.5 years to deliver this useless policy.
Well, if you'd tone down the drama a bit, the answer is simple. The Prez - no matter who it is sitting in the chair - is legitimately executing his role when directing another part of the executive branch to change procedure.

See? Wasn't that easy?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-26-2018, 04:12 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Well, if you'd tone down the drama a bit, the answer is simple. The Prez - no matter who it is sitting in the chair - is legitimately executing his role when directing another part of the executive branch to change procedure.

See? Wasn't that easy?
You obviously don't understand what "rule of law" even means. Its definition "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws" is something Trump constantly tries to undermine with his impulsive and arbitrary brainfarts, as he did with versions 1&2 of his Muslim ban, not to mention his recent border fiasco, transgender ban, his Executive Orders on sanctuary cities and his incessant attacks on DOJ, free press and the truth.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 06-26-2018 at 04:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:13 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.